Women Leading Congregations, Part II

I’ve lost count of how many times, during my five years as a rabbi, the liberal Jews I’ve served in Los Angeles and Washington have hinted at their preference for my gender over my female counterparts.

Most of these comments are from people who support gender equality — except when they go to pray. And the comments aren’t only from older generations: Even professionals in their 20s and 30s sometimes tell me that they can’t handle female religious leaders.

Perlo says that the complainers are often themselves women. And he theorizes that liberal religion itself ironically perpetuates this sentiment:

In liberal religion, people rarely see tradition as the embodiment of God’s word; rather, religion is valued for its sentimental, emotional content — the way it feels to sit in a pew or the familiarity of prayer melodies from childhood. In this sense, religious observance feels like being wrapped in an older, safer world, one in which life felt less complicated and more certain. And in that nostalgic world, clergy are men.

Svetlana Boym, the author of “The Future of Nostalgia,” writes that “nostalgia is a rebellion against the modern idea of time, the time of history and progress.”

When people are stuck in such a nostalgic world, time’s swift tide — which has brought shifting gender roles and widespread acceptance of diverse sexual orientations — unbalances them. Even if these people support society’s progress on gender equality, they may miss the clarity of defined gender roles. And many look to religion as a refuge where time is frozen and older, understood rules apply. As a consequence, we end up asking religion to stay a step behind the changing world.

I’m not trying to rob anyone of the warmth of her childhood memories. Nor can I say that I somehow get what it’s like to be a female rabbi.

But I do want to point out the harm nostalgia causes. It doesn’t matter whether someone objects to female clergy out of principle or out of sentiment, the effect is the same: Female religious leaders are marginalized, perpetuating religious patriarchy.

Well, as a believer in a patriarchal religion, I say: Up with the patriarchy! But more seriously, Perlo’s explanation doesn’t seem quite right to me. He goes on to say that the female rabbi problem is a matter of historical expectations, and that things will change over time. This notion comes up in a subsequent conversation between Eleanor Barkhorn (Christian) and Jennie Rothenberg Gritz (Jewish), who talk about that column, and why many men and women still aren’t comfortable with women pastoring congregations. In this excerpt, JRG imagines her ideal female rabbi:

Jennie: When I try to picture it, for some reason, I think of a woman who stands up there in front of a congregation with an amazing presence about her—a sense of profound calm and command. She could be vivacious, or more laid back—it’s not so much about personality. But I think of her as having a certain gravitas that isn’t at all macho. I realize, as I type this, that that sounds kind of vague. I have no idea what a woman rabbi should or shouldn’t wear, for instance. But I do think there’s a way to radiate spiritual leadership that doesn’t at all have to be associated with male-ness—and I’m sure a lot of people would be quick to say that their female rabbis do have that quality.

And I feel like men would respond well to that quality. There is an archetype of the “wise woman,” even if it isn’t a particularly Jewish or Christian archetype. But I do think it’s somewhere in our culture.

A lot of people would argue that none of this should be about gender at all—it should be about having an exalted, enlightened human being up there leading a congregation. That’s a nice ideal. But it may take a while before women religious leaders can truly get up in front of a congregation without being seen as trying to fill a man’s shoes. (Or wearing a man’s kippah and tallit.)

Hmm. While there is no doubt a historical and cultural component of this phenomenon, I don’t have much faith that it will be resolved by the passage of time. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, women priests are a theological impossibility, given the sacramental role of the priest. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have produced spiritual giants from its women, despite barring women from the sacramental priesthood. Anybody want to tell Genevieve of Paris, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Hildegarde of Bingen, or Julian of Norwich, that they couldn’t amount to much because they couldn’t lead congregations as priests?

For Protestant churches, in general, the leader of the congregation does not play the same sacramental role. If the role of the pastor is to provide teaching and to lead worship, why couldn’t women do that as well as men? In theory, I don’t see why they couldn’t.

But religion, as the tough old atheist bird H.L. Mencken reminds us, is a poem, not a syllogism. If Rabbi Perlo’s congregations tell him that a female rabbi doesn’t “feel” right, that means more than he perhaps understands. Mind you, I’m the first one to gripe about people who treat religion primarily as an emotional phenomenon, but I’ve learned through hard experience the deep truth of Mencken’s observation. That is, a religion that exists only in one’s head is hard to distinguish from a philosophy. Real religion captures the heart, and, more broadly, the body, by which I mean the senses. The heart is not rational. It and should can be guided by the mind, but ultimately living religion has to cohere in both the mind and the heart.

Reading these online essays, I find myself wondering if these Jewish (and Christian) congregants struggling to accept female rabbis and pastors intuit something important that contemporary theologians of those traditions miss. Is there a givenness in our nature that causes us to desire male religious leaders over females? Or, as Rabbi Perlo has it, is this more a matter of nurture, or cultural expectations?

In our time and place, we discount the givenness of human nature, thinking it an infinitely plastic thing that we can bend and twist to fit our ideals. But human nature may not be as plastic as we think it is. Maybe that’s what’s going on here.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 87 comments

87 Responses to Women Leading Congregations, Part II

Re: minister and Rabbi at least are both FAMILY jobs (unlike priests).

Sharon, Orthodox priests are usually married with children. Their wife often has a special title (Khouriya, Matushka, Presbytera, Popadia) and often a special role of some sort (though that varies enormously).

I’d say that women, if anything, are often better suited to pastoral care than men. Several years ago I did a story about clergy who had converted from other religions. One was an Episcopalian female pastor, probably in her 40s at the time, who had converted from Catholicism, I think primarily because the Catholic Church does not allow women to become priests. She was a warm woman, very well liked by the congregation and liberal leaning but not remarkably so for Episcopalians. Her theology was conventionally Christian.

The other person I interviewed for the article was a young, 20-something Catholic priest who had converted from the Lutheran Church when he was in college. He was one of the new batch of deeply conservative, orthodox traditionalist Catholics and had all the fervor and earnestness of a convert. He didn’t last long in that particular church. I don’t think he had the common touch. The female Episcopalian priest did.

Several of the Lutheran churches in this area have female pastors and the congregations speak as highly of them as they do of the male pastors. Lutheran churches also generally choose their own pastors and I assume they could have hired male pastors if they’d wanted to.

It may be true that men are more inclined to think of religion as an ongoing struggle or in sports terms or that many people are so used to men being priests or ministers that they are uncomfortable with women. But people get used to change. I don’t think that is universal or that women shouldn’t be in the leadership role of a church because of tradition.

For those who are citing Biblical precedent, there’s always Junia in Romans 16:7 ,who was referred by Paul “as being of note among the Apostles” along with Andronicus. Many scholars now agree that Junia was likely a woman and wasn’t really “Junias.”

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that 90% of people who write crap about “liberal” congregations have never actually attended such a church (or synogogue) and have only read about the over-the-top oddballs instead. In the protestant world, the spiritual and theological depth of a lot of so-called liberal churches is something of a well kept secret. Because there’s so much opposition, many women who do go into ministry are very, very serious about their theology and scripture because they often feel that they need to be serious in order to be taken seriously.

I’ve noticed that many on this thread seem to put God and people in boxes. You have boxes for women, men, gays, liberals, good conservatives, bad conservatives. You know that your interpretation of the bible and Christianity is correct and people who see things differently than you are wrong. And like Santa, you know whose been good or bad.

I’ve been wondering do you ever have doubts or uncertainty? How does all of this knowledge play out in your lives? How have your lives been transformed? On this blog and many others like it, I have learned all of the things and groups of people you dislike and from my perspective disrespect, but please tell me about your relationship with God. I want to hear what is working – helping you to transcend the struggles and temptations of life.

I’m no theologian, but I Corinthians 14:33-35 seems pretty clear-cut to me.

As in all the churches of God’s people, the women should keep quiet in the church meetings. They are not allowed to speak: as the Jewish law says, they must not be in charge. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting.

Rod: “but then one wonders: to what extent is a Judaism, or a Christianity, that are not patriarchal, even nominally, still Judaism or Christianity?”

Are you effing kidding me? Seriously? WTF. NOTHING Jesus said or did had anything to do with patriarchy. The gospel has NOTHING to do with patriarchy. And Paul referred to various women by every title used in the NT: deacon, apostle, disciple, teacher – an praised them for their work. The idea of patriarchy isn’t unique to Abrahamic religions. Neither is the idea of male-only leadership. Both are human constructs which Christian influence has done more to dismantle than any other force in human history. Good grief. Thank God almighty that you’re not actually in charge of anything.

Among the heathens, female priesthoods were common and their cults often very popular.

I once read a work of apologetics (sorry, I don’t remember the work or the author) arguing that the extremely patriarchal nature and masculine imagery about God present in Judaism developed (or, if you prefer, God choose to reveal Himself using masculine imagery) precisely in order to create a contrast with the goddess-oriented fertility cults so common in surrounding cultures.

because nothing screams “We are an anachronism completely out of touch with the modern world!” than thinking that only men should be religious leaders.”

For many of us conservative religious types, that’s a feature, not a bug. In other words, being “completely out of touch with the modern world” is exactly what we think our religious traditions should be doing.

Why are solid majorities of our CEO’s and politicians and college presidents men also?

When I was in library school, we discussed the nature of the profession and the fact that, while librarianship is an overwhelmingly female profession, library directors and other senior administrators are disporportionately more likely to be men. (I suppose the same might be true of education; though the ranks of teachers are overwhelmingly female, school superintendents are disproportionately likely to be male.)

One suggested answer was simply that men were more likely to want to advance to administrative positions. In the library field, women often choose to stop advancement at the department head level (head of circulation, head of reference, etc.). One possible reason is that many women say that they became librarians because they enjoyed working with patrons. As a department head, you have a certain amount of administrative responsibility, but you can still spend a fair amount of time working with patrons. Once you get above the department head level, however, most of your job involves administration, and many women seem to feel that that’s not what they entered the field to do. But men in the field often jump at the chance to take an administrative job. Similarly, a teacher who loves to teach might not really want to be principal, let alone a superintendent.

“I’m no theologian, but I Corinthians 14:33-35 seems pretty clear-cut to me.”

Sure it does at first glance. But have you looked at older translations? Do you know the historical context in which it was written? Do St. Paul’s personal prejudices perhaps have something to do with his wording? (He was unmarried and surrounded by men about whom he talked constantly of “loving.”) What exactly does the “Jewish law” state on this question? Is it Scriptural, in Torah, or is this a tradition? And ultimately, what did Jesus say about “the Law?” He broke it many times and continued to instruct his followers to break it after he came back (Acts 10:9-16 e.g.).

Amos Newcombe, I am not trying to say that you are wrong. You read the Corinthians passage and interpret it, as do all of us. It’s just that what seems straightforward may not always be so.

Re: One theological area that is avoided is dealing with the implications of Patristic teaching (specifically originating with St Gregory of Nanzianzus, IIRC) that whatever Christ assumed, he redeemed, and how that affects who and what can become an ikon of Christ.

Yeah, this is probably one of the best, most sophisticated argument for ordaining women, that you will hear from intelligent pro-women’s-ordination Anglicans, for example. Another good argument is that the example of female saints, visionaries, and prophetesses shows that women can be spiritually gifted to at least the same degree as men. (The *bad* arguments for women’s ordination, in my view, are the knee-jerk arguments that ‘discrimination is bad, male-only ordination is so passe, we know better than our backward ancestors’, and other examples of what C. S. Lewis calls, I think, the chronological fallacy).

There are some arguments being made here, on the conservative side, that I have to rather strongly disagree with. My own examples with women priests in the Anglican tradition have generally not been great ones, and the best priests I’ve had experience with, including my confessor and the priest who has been the greatest influence on me, are male. Possibly this is precisely because men are generally less spiritually inclined than women, and to be a spiritually gifted man is harder and takes more struggle than a woman. But I don’t think my personal experience constitutes any sort of general rule. I’ve met a few women priests who seemed to be really good at what they did. And I participated a couple years ago in a (Roman Catholic) bible study run by a young woman who was really spiritually gifted, and who I think would have made a good priest if her church had allowed her to be one.

The argument that ‘a man’s voice carries better in a church’ is, uh…..subjective, to say the least. And disputed. Honestly, when I try to picture what the voice of God would sound like if it was conveyed through a human voice, I generally picture it in the voice of a woman. There’s a reason why the Greek Oracle was a woman, why the secrets of Fatima were entrusted to a girl child, why the first vision that we have of purgatory was attributed to a woman, why some of the most widely read and influential mystical treatises in Christian history were written by women like Julian of Norwich. (N.B. I’m not trying to paint Greek paganism as equivalent to Christianity here, just pointing out that women have been seen as a channel for the divine for a very long time). If Jesus decided to surprise us and incarnate a second time, I don’t see why he couldn’t take on the body of a woman, just because he didn’t the first time.

The argument that women shouldn’t have spiritual authority over men, is also sort of bogus. Never mind the many women teachers (including in religious schools), theologians, etc. throughout history. My understanding is that in the Middle Ages (anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) the prevailing theory, in the East, was that the Byzantine Empire was as much a divinely ordained institution as the church, that they had been established to fulfil distinct but complementary ends, and that both of them exerted moral and spiritual authority, but in different ways. (The Byzantine Emperors, for one thing, were involved in selecting patriarchs, if I remember correctly). And many Byzantine Emperors were, uh, women. If a woman can be queen or empress, and if those are considered divinely ordained roles, which they were for much of history, there’s no intrinsic barrier to women being clergy.

Again, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have taken a different view. Maybe they’re right that women shouldn’t be ordained priests. I don’t know the mind of God, and the fact that the church has always done things one way is certainly compelling, though not ultimately decisive for me. That’s why I’m ultimately agnostic about the issue, and think we need more experience with women clergy to see how it ultimately effects the church. But, I can say that as yet I’m still unimpressed by most of the arguments I’ve seen against women clergy.

Re: Do St. Paul’s personal prejudices perhaps have something to do with his wording?

I’ll also point out that St. Paul said explicitly, on at least one occasion, that he was saying something *on his own authority*, and *not* channeling God. (This was, famously, on the matter of divorce from an unbelieving partner, I think also in Corinthians). If on at least one occasion he was setting down his own thoughts rather than divine inspiration, it’s more than likely it happened on other occasions too. Maybe this is one of them.

And maybe, too, just like his thoughts on slavery, the stuff about women speaking in church was intended for a particular social context, and not as a moral law for all time.

Re: the stuff about women speaking in church was intended for a particular social context, and not as a moral law for all time.

The passage also says that if the women have any questions they ought ask their husbands. The context would appear to be one in which women new to Christian rites were interrupting to ask what was going on and why. That would be rude even today.

Well, “many” is exaggeration, but there were a few. More generally there was a sense in Byzantium that the imperial authority was invested in both the Emperor and Empress, with the Emperor generally taking the lead, but the Empress would serve as regent if he was ill or absent (e.g., Theodora I when Justinian was stricken with plague) and would also rule if her husband died and left only a minor heir (Irene and Theodora II Restorer of the Icons). There was also Eudoxia, John Chrysostom’s nemesis, who pretty much ruled things since her husband Arcadius was a lazy hedonist. And there were a couple of empresses who ruled in their own name (e.g., Zoe and Theodora III).
This theory of shared rule also carried over to Russia and it’s how Catherine the Great came into her own power.

“Rod, I’m genuinely curious, if your daughter decided she loved God and your church so much that she wanted to be a priest and help people on their path to Him, how would you go about explaining that it doesn’t matter how devoted she is to God, she can never be a priest because she’s a girl? If she asks you why you’re part of a religion that would deny her this when her gender is the only reason, what will you say? Will it be enough just to tell her “God said girls can’t”?”

There really is a Borgishness about modern culture. “You must accept out understanding of gender roles (or the lack thereof), you will be assimilated or you’re an evil man! Resistence is futile!”

Women already dominate most of church life and mainstream modern Christianity champions maternal virtues to the near exclusion of all others (even feminine ones). Female clergy just really drives home the message to men that there really is no place for them in Christianity.

As to the Orthodox Church, probably the most well-known podcaster on AncientFath radio is Kh. Frederica Mathews Green. As others have said we have women theologians and teachers, as we always have (look a St Nino).

A priest means something in the Orthodox church that a protestant minster simply doesn’t. Anyone looking at it primarily as a “leadership” position doesn’t understand what it is.

The issue is theology in Catholic/Orthodoxy that people here do not seem to understand. It’s not based on what Paul said. But, on what a priest does. A priest offers sacrifice. What did Jesus do on the cross? What is the Mass etc.

Someone brought up examples in Orthodoxy about menstruation. It does have a context. Blood can stand for both life and death. Traditionally, the blood that stood for life was associated with women, such as child birth. The blood that stood for death was associated with men such as hunting, killing, etc. The two bloods were not to mix, to keep the distinction between life and death.

In the Cross, life and death, judgement, and mercy, were both mixed, making Jesus the saviour for both men and women. The cross unites men and women.

It could be said, that the work of the priest is one that involves offering atonement for sin, like Jesus. The cross is a sacrifice, not a monetary transaction.

Women bring life, so the work of the priest would not be suitable for a woman. It could seriously confuse distinctions, without which we miss Jesus.

As I have pointed out it has nothing to do with spiritual strength, but the role of the ordained priest itself. Women in Catholic/Orthodox churches already do what a Protestant minister does. I do not see the logic of getting a priest to not function as a priest.

As for the incarnation being male, in the theist worldview, creation is born from without like from a father, not from within like from a mother. This is a masculine attribute.

Reversing this would make us pantheist, where creation is born from within.

My intention here is to observe and suggest, and perhaps to learn. In a topic as specifically focused as this one, I automatically defer to those who have a real stake in this.

So, I ask the question: In the entire Christian tradition, is there a feminine or female archetype that can validly be labelled as deity? It is my understanding that canonization is not the same as rising to the level of deity. Pagans both modern and ancient do not place leadership on gender, they place idealism on archetypal figures, and not always on standard human gender stereotypes. Athena/Minerva is the goddess of wisdom, crafts and defense and strategic warfare. The Morrigan is the goddess of battle, warfare and sovereignty. The Valkyries chose fallen heroes to take to Valhalla. The modern Lord and Lady are the two sides of the same coin for most of us who include them in our beliefs.

I believe the answer is no, there is not, and I stand ready to be corrected. However, that is the motivation for my original post here.

“The passage also says that if the women have any questions they ought ask their husbands. The context would appear to be one in which women new to Christian rites were interrupting to ask what was going on and why. That would be rude even today.”

I read a couple of interpretations that 1) claim that due to a piece of legislation in Corinth, women had recently been told not to speak in public and so to protest, they would go out into the square and just “babble,” make noise and talk nonsense. In this interpretation, Paul’s instructions are based on an assumption that women are equal in the church and have no need to protest there by babbling; 2) that the Christian women in Corinth were so empowered by their new freedom in Christ that they were speaking out and also uncovering their heads, which was against the custom or rules of the time and place. Paul’s instruction in this interpretation is that they put the church in danger by flouting the rules so publicly and so should “behave” so as not to bring unwelcome attention by the authorities.

I find both of these interpretations a bit nervy. An historical record doesn’t exist to adequately support or refute them, but they do show some creative thinking and looking at the hermeneutics “from below” i.e. not the history written by the victors.

It should be noted, as well, that cultural influences are as much of concern — often in constructive ways, to be sure — in my spiritual community as well.

Further comments on other posts:

The ancient pantheons, in their latter and declining years, were as subject to politicization and cultural conflicts as any of our modern belief systems. Gender roles and secular power were of primary concern. I cannot site an objective description, but the very well researched fictional biography of Marcus Tulius Cicero — A Pillar of Iron by Taylor Caldwell — described that dynamic. Temples of goddesses and their leadership had as much respect and sometimes as much political power (if more subtle and behind the scenes, as it were) as any of the temples to gods. The most prominent deity of either gender was Vesta, goddess of home, hearth and family. Rhea Silvia, a Vestale, was believed to have been the mother of Romulus and Remus (Mars was the [ahem] deific culprit).

As a gesture of respect, not an appeal to political correctness, I request that we avoid the term “cult” for those contemporary beliefs and practices. To them, Christianity was a cult. We can waste much time on that argument. Indeed, I am much more personally accepting of applying “cult” to some (to us) modern incarnations of those ancient beliefs… but not all of them. 😀

Something to remember is that in Paul’s day there were no church buildings. Christians met in small groups in private homes. This encouraged a sort of casual behavior that might normally be OK at a dinner party, but not at a solemn religious rite. It could also give rise to rumors of orgies (further enhanced by the fact that Christians called their Eucharist feast an agape, “love”, meal), It’s possible to see Paul’s message as an exhortation for women to remain as proper and dignified in these home-churches as they would out in public. Hence the stricture to keep their heads covered, as at the time respectable women in the Greco-Roman world always wore some sort of head veil when in public, much as in the Middle East today.

Based, on my own research. Pagans did not have a sacrificial priesthood centred around atonement for sin. This comes from Afro-Asiatic cultures and Temple Judaism, which were both monotheistic and always male. Vedic hinduism does have a similar concept, but once again it’s the only branch of Hinduism that is monotheistic.

Anthropologists will tell you that blood pacts, are always made in certain African tribes, between men, but never between men and women, because of the distinction between life and death.

This makes sense why sacrificial priests were particular about these things, including exclusively marrying into priestly-lines. The modern world sees these things as racist, or outmoded. But it makes sense when you actually study the origins of the Christian priesthood and it’s fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

The Christian priesthood has no direct connection with the Jewish priesthood, and when it comes to ancient Afroasiatic-speaking cultures cultures, there were plenty of goddesses to be found among them: Ishtar, Tanit, Isis, etc. Judaism really was unique in antiquity for being both monotheistic and not having female divinity.

“The Christian priesthood has no direct connection with the Jewish priesthood.”

The Jewish priesthood was genetic, where Priests married the daughter of priests, in the expectation that the Messiah would come from the priestly line. Mary and Joseph’s father’s were both priests. The Christian priesthood is not genetic, but it’s source is Jesus and it’s linked to his atonement and sacrifice.

The central act of worship in both Catholic/Orthodox churches.

As seen from the book The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History

“Like all Christians, Orthodox and Roman Catholics celebrate the Eucharist. The Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches teach that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Both East and West also consider the Eucharist a commemoration or remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. For this reason, both Churches describe the Eucharist as a “sacrifice of praise.” During his prayers, an Orthodox priest refers to the Divine Liturgy as a “liturgic and bloodless sacrifice.”544 During the Roman Catholic Mass, the priest says, “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father.”545 Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians also believe that in the Eucharist Christ both offers and receives the sacrifice. During the Orthodox Liturgy, the priest prays, “thou thyself art he that offereth and is offered, that is accepteth and is “distributed.”546

I was referring to the Afro-Asiatic roots of Monotheism. Semitic languages come from this family.

I am no longer really sure what you are talking about. The entire Christian Church has its source in Jesus Christ. No Christ=no Church. But again: the priesthood and, yes, the episcopate too, is just an office, and only an office. There’s nothing “magical”about it (any true mysteria has its source in God alone, not in the men who populate church offices, nor in the institution itself– that would be the rankest clericalism).
I am also not sure what you mean by “Afro-Asiatic”. As far as I know the only valid use of that term, culturally, is in reference to a large and ancient language family, one that includes the Semitic languages, the Berber languages, ancient Egyptian, the Cushitic languages (e..g, Somali), the small Omotic group of Ethiopia, and the Chadic languages of West Africa. Beyond a bunch of cognate vocabulary and some similar grammatical structures there’s little cultural unity in that grouping– it apparently predates even agriculture. And in any event I am leery of attempts to relate anything other than the merely superficial in Christianity to Pagan practices and beliefs. To be sure Christianity has solid Jewish roots, and also a grafted Hellenic stock. But relating the Eucharist to animist blood rites among Hausa speakers in West Africa strikes me as risible as the theories of know-it-all skeptics who claim Christ is just Mithra in Jewish garb, or who think that the linguistic accident that gave us the word “Easter” expresses some deep theological truth.

Amos Newcombe quotes a translation of Corinthians that is considerably more “clear-cut” than either the King James translation or the Revised Standard, probably more so than many other versions. Therefore, it was most likely translated by people who sought a “clear-cut” meaning, and provided it as they translated, probably without deliberate intent to deceive.

Any translation raises significant questions for feminists, but not so clear-cut. The fact that translations differ shows that no translation is, or can be, “the complete and perfect word of God.” Perhaps the original is, although, as already noted, sometimes Paul admitted he was writing down his own opinion, not revelation or inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

Some years back, James Watkins observed that the Greek text, understood in the context of Corinth at that time, suggested that the women Paul was speaking of were recent converts who had been temple priestesses of Diana, sacred prostitutes. He was warning that these women should take some time to learn their new faith, and not suddenly speak up as if they really knew anything yet.

This is not unlike the Baptist minister who devoted himself to building his church by bringing in newly born-again drug addicts, thieves, prostitutes, alcoholics, etc. He said it was very rewarding and inspiring work, but “you don’t let them sing in the choir for the first five years.”

As to priesthood, I am open to the idea that there is something specific to priesthood that makes females liturgically the wrong choice, with all due respect to women as women, and no disparaging their ability to be engineers, senators, college presidents, CEO’s, construction workers, etc. Its a bit of an academic question to me, being Protestant, because we don’t have a priesthood at all. I would agree that just because in many walks of life we have acknowledged that being born female is no bar to any given aspiration, doesn’t mean we have to make that uniform in every aspect of life.

Churches, for one, are free to operate internally according to their own faith and doctrine. Barring women from priesthood is quite different from engaging in human sacrifice. The former limits participation in a role within the practice of the faith. The latter affirmatively imposes upon a hapless individual. To deny someone what they wish is not the same as imposing upon someone what they do not consent to.

I spent many years struggling with and feeling hostility over the Christian “imperialism” — as I termed it, reinforced by fellow believers — while overlooking a clear and unbreakable bond between us: We seek and sometimes find a feeling of sanctuary from the conflicts and dangers of life, and no matter who we are or what our beliefs, that feeling is ours to share as fellow human beings.

I join Jon in rejecting the arguments over who stole or adopted from whom, when, and for what reasons. There are valid intellectual points to be made, but at no point is there validity or purpose in finding a “winner”, of declaring this belief superior to that one — a practice found in every camp without exception — because we will find ourselves seeking that sanctuary together, and sometimes sharing it.

For perhaps differences in detail, but for the same reasons and results, I thank you both for sharing your thoughts and feelings here on Rod’s blog. Not all gifts come wrapped, or are offered with deliberate intent.

Thanks for this message. I was just trying to show Jon F, that pastoral roles are secondary to the sacramental role of the priesthood. Since anybody else can teach, preach, guide etc. The more one takes the focus of this, the more one becomes confused about what a priest is needed for.

And that some things are just common sense, such as life is in the blood. You don’t have to be Christian, pagan, or Jewish to discover this.

Siarlys Jenkins,

The Eucharist is the same timeless sacrifice at Calvary, made present in an unbloody manner. The fruits applied to the past, present, and future.

Holy Orders is a sacrament.

Sacramental signs have to be perceptible to the senses.

Anything else would simply be not just a denial of the cross, but also of physical reality.

“I would agree that just because in many walks of life we have acknowledged that being born female is no bar to any given aspiration, doesn’t mean we have to make that uniform in every aspect of life.”

Yes, enough though no two men and women are alike. I find the modernist attempt to re-create everything, to be a deep fear what is physically real or seeing things as they are.

It has to do a lot with the fact that we have become an entertainment culture, and spend more time with technology and fictional characters, than we do with real people.

You may be right. However, short of God Almighty or one of his malachim appearing to me personally to affirm this as Truth, I have no reason to accept this as established. I find good cause to doubt it. To me, communion is no more and no less than “this do in remembrance of me.”

Sure Savia, I’ve often chimed in on RC blogs that there is a word for people who don’t accept the authority of the Magesterium in matters of faith and doctrine: Protestant. However, I wouldn’t think to condemn people born and raised in the church who think they are entitled to a say in how it is run. I mean, by church doctrine, they don’t, but I still have some sympathy. That fight is between them and their more traditionalist co-parishioners. I’m out of it.

I suspect that God is laughing at ALL of our attempts to define who and what He is and what He requires of us, at least, beyond that pithy sentence in Micah.

The Orthodox have the same views on this issue, and they are not Protestant. If someone does not want a priesthood, they can join a church that does not have one. I do not see the point in getting a priest to not function as a priest.

When you speak off, “a practice found in every camp without exception — because we will find ourselves seeking that sanctuary together, and sometimes sharing it.”

This reminds me of binary distinctions. The French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss observed binary thinking among pre-literate Amazon tribes in the 20th century. In his book, Le cru et le cuit, Strauss explores cultural perceptions of natural/raw-prepared/cooked, and other oppositions within primitive cultures.

Lévi-Strauss dedicated himself to searching for the “underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity.” He argued on the basis of his anthropological findings that the primitive mind has the same structures or patterns as the civilized mind. These observations culminated in his famous book Tristes Tropiques, which positioned him as the central figure in the structuralist school.

Flux occurs within boundaries, but the order of creation is fixed. Lévi-Strauss and other structuralists agree that all humans observe certain patterns in the ordering of their societies and these patterns are informed by objective observation of the fixed order in creation.

In other words, trends come and go, but hot-cold, male-female, day-night, raw-cooked, east-west remains the same.

Post-modernists are simply wrong when they claim that these things are based on one’s perception, rather than reality.